A Cut Around Sutton Coldfield
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
A CUT AROUND SUTTON COLDFIELD D J Redwood A Cut Around Sutton Coldfield Stories of the Birmingham & Fazeley canal from Dunton to Minworth Introduction In 2014 personal interests in canals, family and local history came together during a quest for a new research paper. In examining the 1841 Census for unusual occupations in Sutton Coldfield, I noticed some entries that indicated canal based employment. From this small amount of information, I set out to discover what happened to some of the families who lived alongside the ‘Cut’ on the southern boundary of the Royal Town. It is unlikely that the Birmingham & Fazeley Canal had any major economic impact on many of the townspeople. Indeed, for much of its existence, it would have been quite remote, except for those families who lived in the small villages and settlements close to Sutton Coldfield through which the canal was cut in the late 18th century. This paper will focus mainly on those who lived in the 19th and early 20th centuries along or near the 3-mile pound from Dunton where the A446 crosses the canal near Curdworth Top Lock to where the A38 is taken across the waterway at the start of the Minworth Locks. Additionally, the role of the canal in the building of the Minworth Sewage Works will be explored as it played a key part in its’ construction and in the movement of supplies and materials. During my research, I came across a small number of other items related to the length of canal I have focussed upon and these have been gathered together as Snippets. Beginnings In the 18th century canals spread throughout England as the impact of the Industrial Revolution began to demand improved methods of transportation. Led by landed gentry such as the Duke of Bridgewater, who recognised the potential of waterways as a more efficient system for transporting coal, and industrialists, including Josiah Wedgwood, who needed to move their goods more safely, canals were soon covering the country. James Brindley, an early canal engineer sought to link four of the country’s most important rivers – the Mersey, Trent, Severn and Thames - believing this to be the best way to bring the benefits of water-based transport to the growing number of cities and towns with their factories, mines, ironworks and potteries. This plan effectively placed Birmingham at the heart of the canal system as the network of canals grew. The decision, in the latter part of the 18th century, to link the Trent & Mersey Canal to Coventry was to lead to a further link from Fazeley, near Tamworth, to the heart of Birmingham itself – the Birmingham & Fazeley Canal was born. As with many canals, the building of the B&F Canal was not without its challenges. Principally these were caused by objections from other canal companies, fearing a loss of trade, and private landowners who preferred other routes. In 1770 a meeting was held in Lichfield to ‘consider a canal from Walsall, a coal- producing area which had been largely untouched by the Birmingham Canal, by Lichfield to Fradley on the Trent & Mersey (Canal)’ (*Hadfield – The Canals of the West Midlands). This proposal came to nothing, following opposition, and little happened until August 1781 when a meeting in Warwick considered a canal from Wednesbury by Fazeley to Atherstone where the Coventry Canal originally finished. An amendment to the route was proposed whereby the canal would end at Fazeley with a branch to Birmingham. The line proposed would have taken the canal further south, after running just parallel to the current route from Tyburn towards Minworth. At this point it was planned to turn towards Water Orton before swinging back to Curdworth. It is likely that this was not acceptable to some of the local landed gentry. In a most interesting book covering the history of the giant Castle Vale housing estate, the author, Geoff Bateson, notes that – “the extension of the canal from Birmingham to Fazeley was opposed by the Earl of Dartmouth and his relative Heneage Legge on the grounds that building the canal across their land would “cause Gentlemen’s Estates and Pleasure-grounds to be cut to pieces and annoyed”. The canal was eventually built, running from Legge’s land at Aston to Bagot’s estate at Berwood. This construction did not remove much land from the Berwood estate but did bring in considerable compensation for the disturbance caused to the Bagots (although one suspects that it was in reality the tenant farmers who had the most disturbance).” Unfortunately, this aroused the shareholders of the Birmingham Canal who saw the proposal as a threat to their company. In January 1782, they stated that they considered it ‘not only unnecessary that any other Canal should be made to this Town but that the same, if made, would greatly prejudice the present Undertaking and that such Measure is not warranted in Equity or Justice.’ In consequence, the proposal was finally defeated. Having explored other options, such as making the River Tame navigable to Tamworth (a proposal examined for viability by the renowned engineer, William Jessop), the canal once again failed to be taken further. A further proposal led to discussions with several other canal companies, including the Trent and Mersey, Coventry and Oxford companies. Agreement and funding was announced in Coleshill in June 1783 but this only spurred on the Birmingham Canal Company to set out plans for a new company that would build, among other works, a canal from Farmer’s Bridge in Birmingham to Fazeley. An Act of Parliament was passed and agreement reached with the shareholders of the B&F Company to purchase their shares and finally, in 1784, both were amalgamated to become the Birmingham & Fazeley Canal Company. John Smeaton oversaw the building of the new canals and, in 1786, their contractor, John Pinkerton (1740-1813), believed to have been born in Lincolnshire or the East Riding of Yorkshire, began the link to Fazeley. He was one of several Pinkertons who worked as engineers on the new canals. His brother, James, was possibly more successful than John. Several nephews also worked as engineers, including George Pinkerton. John had most recently worked with the Dudley Canal Company but this was, like many of the early canal projects, a fraught occasion, according to Peter Cross-Rudkin in his research document entitled Canal Contractors 1760-1820, a very informative paper. Relying on the views of local miners, rather than a ground survey, the work that Pinkerton supervised as excavation began to create the Dudley Tunnel was beset with difficulties and he later negotiated a withdrawal from his tender with the canal company. Pinkerton then contracted with the Birmingham & Fazeley Canal to work on the eastern half of the new canal, now being built. The Resident Engineer for the B&F, James Bough, had been a fellow contractor with John on the Birmingham Canal (1783). John’s nephew, George, found that Bough’s levels were incorrect. Thus, John Pinkerton submitted a revised, cheaper, tender based on more accurate quantities. By now, however, the contractor engaged on the other part of the new canal was employing most of the available navvies. So, the new work suffered, partly because the labour force was less experienced. Interference by Bough, together with allegations of bad workmanship supervised by Pinkerton, led to a dispute between the various persons involved. Pinkerton clearly caused several difficulties himself during this construction period. He was told to rebuild some of the infrastructure but declined. This led to his dismissal in February 1789. As has been noted, Pinkerton was involved in a few canal projects that ran into difficulties, often through poor workmanship and the use of sub-standard materials. “The Birmingham-Fazeley Company claimed he bodged the puddling and built the locks of stacks of poor unbonded bricks and brick-ends. Only the bricks facing outward were good. On top of that he drove them a tunnel at Curdworth when they distinctly asked for a cutting.” 'He was too moderate,' Pinkerton said of himself in the third person, 'and too gentle to secure his own interest against the falsehood and calumny, with which little, mean, and envious individuals assailed his character, and poisoned the minds of the Company's Committee.' He claimed his work was blameless, blaming the envy, lies and spite of the company's officials for what happened to him and the canal. The officials the company hired, he said, were of very low quality.” (The Navvyman by Dick Sullivan) A lawsuit followed, leading to John writing his own account in his defence – “Abstract of the Cause between the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal Navigations and John Pinkerton 1801”. The company claimed £4 800 from him to cover the cost of completion and repairs while he counterclaimed for £550, saying that it was due to him under the contract, and this was accepted by the Company’s solicitors who agreed they had overlooked a claim for extras. Pinkerton did not help his cause as his “Abstract” attacked the integrity of the Company’s Clerk. Taken to court for libel, he was found guilty and spent three months in prison. It took another 11 years before the matter was settled through arbitration and he was awarded £436, which would suggest he was in the right. The Minworth to Fazeley section had been the third to be let originally. Finally, at a cost of £110 000, the new section of canal, with 38 locks, was completed in August 1789. Other plans The canal remains much as it was when opened in 1789 but there were proposals in 1910 by the Royal Commission on Canals and Inland Waterways (the Shuttleworth Commission 1906-1911) to enlarge and improve the line of the waterway and introducing inclined planes at Minworth and Curdworth to replace the lock flights.